TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 93
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed in pursuance of the order dated 30.10.2007 and to pay interest @ 12% on amount of Rs. 1,37,833/- from three months from the date of filing of rebate claim till date of payment alongwith other reliefs. The fact of the case is that the petitioner is a partnership firm and is engaged in the manufacturing of various excisable items such as product of Mentha, Menthol, Menthol Crystal and essential oils falling under Chapter No. 29, 30 and 33 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It is duly registered with the Central Excise Department. The petitioner claims that it is engaged in export of menthol and is entitled to rebate of duty paid on the exported goods as per the Rules. The claim of the petitioner for rebate of duty was denied by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efund has been made. Heard Sri Bharatji Agarwal, learned senior counsel alongwith Sri Subham Agarwal for the petitioner and Sri BKS Raghuvansi, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri Bharatji Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 3 is bound to comply with the order dated 30.10.2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as there is no order of the Central Government staying the effect and operation of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that mere pendency of revision before the Central Government is of little consequence so far as refund is concerned. In contra, Sri Rabhuvansi, counsel for the respondents submit that the revision is pending before the Central Government as petitioner has failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uced below. "I reject the rebate claim amounting to Rs. 1,37,833/- (Rs. One lac Thirty Seven Thousands Eight Hundred Thirty Three only) in respect of goods exported by M/s Aroma Chemicals, Siddhi Sadan, Moradabad vide ARE-1 NO. 8 dated 30.9.2004." The matter was carried in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide his order dated 30.10.2007 has allowed the appeal. The operative portion of the order is reproduced below. "I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and records of personal hearings. I find that the case was already decided in favour of the appellants on merits by the govt. of India in their revision application. However, the adjudicating authority has not found the same otherwise in order, and has rejected ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntial relief." The above facts are no longer in dispute. The only defense set up by the respondent is that the the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is sub judice in revision before the Central Government. Be that as it may. It could not be said by the respondent that there is any interim order in their favour of the Central Government, staying the order of the appellate authority. We find that the Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Limited, AIR 1992 SC 711 had occasioned to consider the similar controversy. The Supreme Court has held that the principal of judicial discipline requires that the order of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department--in itself an objectionable phrase and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only undue harassment to assessee and chaos in administration of the tax la....